Talk:Ekman layer

Dimensions
The formula for Ekman layer thickness has no physical meaning. If Ek (the Ekman number) is a nondimensional quantity, then delta is also a nondimensional quantity. A thickness should have units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.78.76  (talk)  21:47, 5 November 2008‎

Proposed merger with Ekman spiral
I do not believe that the proposed merger of the Eckman layer article with the Eckman spiral article is appropriate, as they seemingly relate to different phenomena (despite the fact they both derive from Coriolis forces). For instance, the depth of the Eckman layer is determined by laminar flow considerations, whilst the depth of the Eckman spiral is stated as being controlled by turbulent mixing processes. Furthermore, whereas the Eckman layer is a general classification of laminar boundary layer (akin to Blasius or Prandtl boundary layer), the Eckman spiral appears to relate to a specific Oceanographical effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard77 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 April 2007‎ (UTC)


 * Seconded. Also, it is Ekman in most references...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.112 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Ekman layer and the Ekman spiral are separate phenomena. The Ekman layer is the layer of fluid where velocities are affected by viscous interaction with a boundary, while the Ekman spiral describes how velocities change between the surface and the general (typically geostrophic) flow.0nullbinary0 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree - they should be merged. The spiral is the turning of currents within an Ekman boundary layer. The phenomenon is essentially the same, whether we are talking about a laminar flow or a turbulent flow with the turbulence parameterised by an eddy viscosity. The ocean's surface Ekman layer (driven by wind stress) and bottom Ekman layer (the turning and extinction of flow in a boundary layer to match a geostrophic flow to the no-slip condition) are also very closely related, with essentially the same physics at work. See sec 6.1 of Fundamentals of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, by James C. McWilliams, CUP 2006131.236.42.180 (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. As of today, both articles contain the same equations, the same solutions and both try to explain the same effect, (and both do it badly, leaving no physical intuition for what is going on, beyond "its the Coriolis effect".) Worse: neither article mentions the other, although both are describing the same idea. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)